Subject: Connect/Disconnect Siglet Agenda for AIW4

From: "Steve Klein (254-5623)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 17:38:05 EST

Here is the proposed Connect/Disconnect Siglet Agenda I sent to
Louise.  I'd like to poll everyone on any other topics they want
to cover besides the specific ones I mentioned.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Connect/Disconnect Siglet Agenda:

Discussion of 6611 implementation additions to RFC 1434 and which
 ones should be include in DLSw standard
  Relevant notes:
    Steve Klein's note of Mon, 24 Jan 94 19:22:50 EST

Discuss circuit setup collision proposals
  Relevant notes:
    Bernard Brady's note of Thu, 4 Nov 93 10:21:52 EDT
    Bernard Brady's note of Tue, 8 Feb 94 10:07:37 EDT
    Steve Klein's note of Mon, 7 Feb 94 17:16:02 EST
    Paul Brittain's note of Tue, 8 Feb 94 11:45:58 GMT (aiw-sig-dlsw)

Discuss proposal for the separation of the topology establishment and
 circuit establishment (including impacts of Choon Lee's loop detection
 proposal)
  Relevant notes:
    Steve Klein's note of Tue, 11 Jan 94 21:33:30 EST
    Steve Klein's note of Mon, 31 Jan 94 19:32:09 EST
    Paul Brittain's note of Tue, 8 Feb 94 11:45:58 GMT (aiw-sig-dlsw)

Miscellaneous topics discussion (as determined by siglet members)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to poll everyone on any other topics they want to cover
besides the specific ones I mentioned above.  Possibilities that I
can think of are:

- Should the C/R bit in SSAP be preserved by DLSw ?
    I should probably apologize for sounding so heavy handed on this one.
    I've been answering so may notes concerning the 6611 implementation
    FSMs that I answered Nagi's note in 'what the 6611 does' mode
    instead of 'what should we do for the DLSw standard' mode.  We
    can talk about this more if anyone is interested.

- How do we handle SDLC
    We have not started any work on this one.  If anyone has any
    suggestions please present them.  The SDLC bringup in
    Jim Cobban's note of Mon, 4 Oct 1993 12:21:00 looks like a
    good starting point.  Is SDLC support still of interest to
    everyone?

Also, if anyone will not be able to attend the AIW next week and has
any proposals or comments they would like to communicate to the siglet,
please post them now so they can be presented at the meetings.

Steve

---

From: "Alan K. Bartky, Manager of Technology" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 07:57:40 PST

Steve -

Here are my responses to your requests.

Alan

P.S. The agenda looks good.

--- Begin Included (edited) Message ---

>    can talk about this more if anyone is interested.

I believe you will have problems with some SNA/LLC devices or SNA/SDLC
devices if you do not follow the exact "normal" sequence of TEST CMD,
TEST RSP, NULL XID CMD, NULL XID CMD, XID2 RESPONSE.  This could apply
on either the two SNA devices that are establishing the data link
connection.  I'll check what happens in our implementation (and I
suggest others in the group do likewise), but we should remember there
are lots of SNA/LLC or SNA/SDLC emulators out there that might not
work without the sequence it expects.  I suggest the standard preserve
the C/R bit.

>    good starting point.  Is SDLC support still of interest to

SDLC support is of interest to us and I suggest we continue work
on this subject.  Certainly for PU2.0 and PU2.1 devices.  I think
we should really strive to have DLSw solve to allow any PU2.0 or 
PU2.1 device to communicate across DLSw regardless or whether they
are SNA/LLC or SNA/SDLC (i.e. let's work towards PU2.0/2.1 any to any
connectivity).

--- End Included Message ---

Alan K. Bartky
Manager of Technology
Sync Research
(714) 588-2070
[email-masked]